Når Adam Smith diskuterer "majs" til hvilken afgrøde henviser han til?

Når Adam Smith diskuterer


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I "The Wealth Of Nations" diskuterer Adam Smith prisen på majs i oldtiden. Tilsyneladende dokumenterer bøger som "Chronicon Preciosum: or An Account of English Money, the Price of Corn and Other Commodities, for the Last 600 Years" (skrevet i 1707) prisen på majs. Dette synes at indikere, at europæerne spiste majs siden mindst 1107.

Imidlertid "lærte" jeg i skolen, at det var Columbus, der bragte majs til Europa efter 1492.

Når Adam Smith diskuterer "majs", refererer han så til en anden vegetabilsk mad, der adskiller sig fra "majskolben"? Eller havde europæerne faktisk majs før Columbus 'tid?


Ordet majs, Fortæller Wiktionary os, kan betyde:

  1. (Storbritannien) Den vigtigste kornplante dyrket for sit korn i en given region, såsom havre i dele af Skotland og Irland, og hvede eller byg i England og Wales.
  2. (USA, Canada, Australien) Majs, en kornafgrøde af arten Zea mays.
  3. Et korn eller frø, især af en kornafgrøde.
  4. En lille, hård partikel.

Ordet kommer gennem proto-germansk fra en proto-indoeuropæisk rod, hvorfra latin granum er også afledt; sidstnævnte gav os englænderne korn (etymonline). (Majs kommer gennem spansk fra Taíno -ordet for Zea mays.)

Så da de britiske kolonier i Amerika blev bosat, majs betød hovedsageligt "korn". Nybyggerne fandt, at de indfødte voksede Zea mays og kaldte det "indisk majs" (Ordbog over amerikanisme). Da det også blev en stor afgrøde af nybyggerne, og de allerede havde navne til deres velkendte majs (hvede, rug, havre), blev navnet "indisk majs" hurtigt forkortet i Amerika til simpelthen "majs".

Om Columbus rejser vendte tilbage med majsfrø er uklart, men det blev hurtigt introduceret til den gamle verden, idet det var et element i den colombianske udveksling, den store overførsel af organismer og ideer mellem halvkuglerne, der fulgte etableringen af ​​europæisk rejse over Atlanterhavet. Columbus var klar over Taíno -dyrkningen af Zea mays, som der er en beskrivelse af den fra hans anden rejse i 1494:

Det er et korn med meget højt udbytte, af størrelsen af ​​lupinen, af kikærternes rundhed og giver et melmalet til et meget fint pulver; den formales som hvede og giver et brød med meget god smag. (Majs 'historier)

Adam Smiths henvisning til majs i oldtiden var bestemt en henvisning til korn, måske specifikt til hvede, men det er ikke klart.


I hendes bog, Rom ved Eufrat, udgivet i 1960'erne, laver historiker Freya Stark flere henvisninger til majs i Mellemøsten og i det sydlige Rusland i den klassiske periode i den sene republik. Hun inkluderede dog ingen illustrationer. Jeg antog, at hun henviste til andre korn, ikke majs, der normalt refereres til i det moderne Amerika (og bestemt ikke til nogens humor!)


Thomas Jeffersons udgivne breve refererer til majs og majs, der dyrkes samtidigt i Frankrig i 1780'erne.


De forklaringer, der er givet, er meget gode, men der er historiebegivenheder, såsom vikingerne, der invaderede England, sejlede også til de nordlige regioner på det amerikanske kontinent, og de kunne have taget majsen (majs) til England.

Der er også en kirke i Skotland (Edinburg), bygget af Saintclaires of Rosslyn i 1446, 46 år før opdagelsen af ​​Amerika. I denne kirke er der indbygget i dens konstruktion, buede figurer af majsplanter med majskolber. Så spiste englænderne majs eller majs, den amerikanske majs før 1492?


Pålidelig ydelse

DEKALB majsprodukter tilbyder 100% eksklusiv genetisk mangfoldighed, innovativ avl og stærk agronomi for at maksimere ydeevne og succes.

Udbytte. Foder. Lykkes.

DEKALB ensilageprodukter har enestående fordøjelighed, ernæringsmæssig kvalitet og et stort tonnagepotentiale for at maksimere din besætnings produktivitet og forbedre præstationspotentialet.

Frø med potentiale for højere ydeevne

Stol på DEKALB kornsorghum for fremragende standbarhed, enestående tærskning og avancerede opholdsgrønne egenskaber.

Kvalitet Alfalfa Crop

DEKALB Roundup Ready® Alfalfa-systemet beskytter dine afgrøder gennem overlegen ukrudtsbekæmpelse, hvilket giver mulighed for lucerne af højere kvalitet og maksimalt udbyttepotentiale.

Overlegen kontrol for maksimalt udbyttepotentiale

DEKALB spring canola -porteføljen tilbyder en komplet serie produkter, der opfylder behovene hos canola -avlere.


Indhold

Chapman blev født den 2. februar 1953 i Denver, Colorado, barn af Wesley Duane Chapman (1930–2000), en svejser (i løbet af hundens barndom) blev senere kautionist (efter hundens start) [5] med Aaron Bail Bonds, som tjente ombord på USS Irwin under Koreakrigen, og Barbara Darlene Chapman (f. Cowell 1934–1994), en minister for Guds forsamlinger. [1] [6] [7] [8] [9] (nærmere bestemt en søndagsskolelærer) [5] Han har tre søskende: Jolene Kaye Martinez (født Chapman 1955–2016), Michael Chapman og Paula Hammond ( født Chapman). [8] Han er af tysk og engelsk afstamning på sin fars side og af engelsk og Chiricahua afstamning på sin mors side. [10] [11]

I en alder af 15 sluttede Chapman sig til Devils Diciples, en fredløs motorcykelklub, og løb hjemmefra. [9] [5] I 1976 blev Chapman dømt for mord i første grad og idømt fem år i et fængsel i Texas. Han havde ventet i en flugtbil, mens hans ven skød og dræbte Jerry Oliver, 69, [12] i en kamp under en aftale om at købe hash. [13]

Chapman tjente 18 måneder på Texas State Penitentiary i Huntsville, Texas. Mens han var i fængsel, skiltes hans første kone LaFonda fra ham og giftede sig med hans bedste ven. Under sin fængsling udførte han feltarbejde og fungerede som vagts frisør. I et interview med Fox News i 2007 hævdede Chapman, at mens han afsonede sin dom, tacklede han en indsat, der var ved at blive skudt for at forsøge at flygte, og en lykønskningserklæring fra en korrektionsofficer inspirerede ham til at blive dusørjæger senere. [14] Chapman blev paroleret i januar 1979. [15]

Som følge af hans overtrædelse af forbrydelser har Chapman ikke tilladelse til at eje skydevåben og er blevet nægtet adgang til Det Forenede Kongerige. [13]

Capture of Andrew Luster Edit

Den 18. juni 2003 lavede Chapman internationale nyheder ved at fange Max Factor -kosmetikarving, Andrew Luster, der var flygtet fra USA midt i sin retssag på anklager om at have bedøvet og voldtaget et antal kvinder. Luster var blevet dømt in absentia på 86 punkter, herunder flere voldtægtsanklager i forbindelse med overfald i 1996, 1997 og 2000. [16] Chapman blev assisteret af sit "jagthold", som bestod af hans søn, Leland, og en medarbejder, Tim Chapman (sidstnævnte havde ingen relation). De tre dusørjægere fangede Luster i Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, hvor han havde boet under et antaget navn. På vej til at bringe Luster i fængsel blev de trukket tilbage af mexicansk politi, og alle fire blev fængslet. Da myndighederne bekræftede Luster's identitet, blev han sendt til Californien for at få sin 125-årige straf.

Chapman og hans team, der stadig var i det mexicanske fængsel, blev i første omgang nægtet kaution, men efter at hans kone Beth gjorde alarmerne til medierne og vakte den offentlige mening i USA, fik de kaution. Da de var kommet ud af fængsel med kaution, fulgte de deres advokats råd og flygtede fra jurisdiktionen og blev derved internationale kautionister. Den 14. september 2006, dage før udløbet af forældelsesfristen, blev Chapman sammen med sin søn Leland Chapman og medarbejder Tim Chapman arresteret af United States Marshals og fængslet i Honolulu på vegne af den mexicanske regering. [17] De mexicanske myndigheder havde anklaget alle tre for "frihedsberøvelse", der involverede arrestationen af ​​Andrew Luster i 2003, fordi dusørjagt er ulovligt i Mexico. Da de ikke fik tilladelse til at forlade landet, mens de var ude af kaution i 2003, erklærede den mexicanske regering de tre Chapmans -flygtninge for dommeren og forsøgte at få dem udleveret til Mexico for strafudmåling. Efter at have tilbragt en nat i det føderale tilbageholdelsescenter i Honolulu fortalte Chapman til journalister "De føderale marskaller behandlede os med stor respekt. Men lad mig fortælle dig, at du aldrig vil gå i et føderalt fængsel, for det er frygteligt." [18]

Den næste dag, 15. september 2006, dukkede Chapman op i en fyldt Honolulu retssal med anklerne i lænker. [17] Selvom dommeren var enig i, at mændene ikke var en væsentlig flyrisiko, beordrede han, at hver især skulle bære en elektronisk overvågningsenhed omkring anklen. [18] De tre mænd blev løsladt mod kaution ($ 300.000 for Duane Chapman, $ 100.000 hver for Leland Chapman og Tim Chapman). Chapmans hovedadvokat, Brook Hart, har angiveligt planlagt at argumentere for, at selv om anklagen, Chapman står over for, er en forseelse i Mexico, [ citat nødvendig ] ved oversættelse til engelsk blev anklagen for kidnapning en forbrydelse under amerikansk lov. Mexicanske myndigheder afviste Harts påstand som den desperate indsats fra en amerikansk advokat, der forsøgte at befri sin klient. De insisterede på, at Chapman faktisk var blevet sigtet for en forbrydelse. En udleveringshøring blev fastsat til 16. november 2006. [19]

Chapman har spekuleret i, at hans anholdelse delvis skyldtes en mulig fangeudvekslingsaftale mellem de mexicanske og amerikanske myndigheder. Ifølge Chapman "solgte de føderale agenter ham" ved at bytte ham ind for en dømt mexicansk narkobaron. [20] Duane, Leland og Tim fik fjernet deres ankelarmbånd, så de kunne arbejde. [21] Den 11. oktober 2006 dukkede rapporter op om et åbent brev af 26. september 2006, sendt på Chapmans vegne af 29 republikanske kongressmedlemmer til USA's udenrigsminister Condoleezza Rice. Brevet angav forfatternes modstand mod Chapmans udlevering og anmodede om, at Rice afviste Mexicos anmodning om samme. [22] Efterfølgende, den 20. oktober 2006, sagde advokater for Chapman, at den mexicanske forbundsdomstol havde givet dem en kendelse, der stoppede straffesagen mod dusørjægeren, indtil yderligere beviser og vidnesbyrd blev indsamlet. [23] Der blev afholdt retsmøde den 23. december 2006. Den oprindelige høring blev udskudt, fordi der endnu ikke var modtaget en rapport fra en lavere domstol. Retten hørte begge sider af historien og besluttede derefter at holde pause. Derefter startede retsforhandlingerne den 16. januar 2007, og retten havde indtil tirsdag den 6. februar 2007, men fristen blev forlænget.

Den 16. februar 2007 afgjorde en mexicansk forbundsdomstol, at der ikke var nogen grund til ikke at prøve Chapman på anklagen om frihedsberøvelse i Mexico. [24] Som svar den 23. februar introducerede Hawaii -statens repræsentanter Gene Ward, Karen Awana, Rida Cabanilla, Lynn Finnegan, Barbara Marumoto, Colleen Meyer, Kymberly Pine, Joe Bertram, Ken Ito, Marylin Lee og John Mizuno House Concurrent Resolution 50, "Anmodning fra Mexicos præsident og Guadalajara anden tingret om at droppe udleveringsanklager mod TV Bounty Hunter, Duane 'Dog' Chapman". [25] Resolutionen blev vedtaget af Udvalget om Internationale Anliggender den 7. marts. [26]

I løbet af denne tid optrådte Chapman sammen med sin nye advokat, William C. Bollard, på adskillige medieprogrammer. Nogle af disse inkluderer: Larry King Live, Greta Van Susteren, Mark og Mercedez Morning Show på Mix 94,1 KMXB i Las Vegas, The Morning Show med Mike og Juliet på WFLD, Fox 6 News San Diego, Glenn Beck -programmet, og DE 9 på Yahoo!. Honolulu nyhedsmedie KHNL rapporterede den 1. august 2007, at arrestordren udstedt for Chapman og hans medarbejdere kunne blive ugyldiggjort, da en mexicansk domstol havde konstateret, at forældelsesfristen for anholdelsen var udløbet. Den 15 sider lange retsorden blev frigivet på spansk og blev oversat og verificeret for juridisk nøjagtighed. [27] Den 29. september 2006 modtog Chapman tilladelse til midlertidigt at få fjernet den elektroniske overvågningsenhed, så han kunne rejse til østkysten for tidligere planlagte optrædener. [28] Den 2. august 2007 afviste Den Første Straffedomstol i Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, alle strafbare anklager, der verserer mod Duane, Leland og Tim Chapman, med den begrundelse, at forældelsesfristen var udløbet. Ordren annullerede faktisk alle ventende gebyrer. Anklagemyndigheden ankede dommen, ifølge A & ampE. [29] Den 5. november 2007 afviste den amerikanske magistratdommer Barry Kurren udleveringsforsøget og sagde, at selvom sagerne blev anket, er trioen ikke længere sigtet for nogen forbrydelser.

Dog Bounty Hunter Redigere

Chapman, efter årtier med dusørjagt, blev vist på Tag dette job, et program om mennesker med usædvanlige erhverv. Dette fik ham og showets produktionsselskab til at foretage en spin-off om hans arbejde med at fange kaution flygtninge, især Chapmans bestræbelser på at jagte Andrew Luster i Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Efter Lusters fængsel blev Chapman interviewet til afsnittet 28. august 2003 i truTV -tv -serien Dominick Dunnes magt, privilegium og retfærdighed. På nuværende tidspunkt var Chapmans profil kommet til opmærksomhed hos den amerikanske offentlighed. Det var i løbet af denne tid A & ampE besluttede at oprette en løbende reality -serie omkring sit dusørjagtjob. Den 30. august 2004 blev den første serie af Dog Bounty Hunter lavede sin tv -debut og kørte i otte sæsoner, inden den blev aflyst i 2012. Temasangen blev fremført af Ozzy Osbourne.

Hund og Beth: På jagt Redigere

Den 25. september 2012 meddelte CMT, at den havde bestilt en ny reality -serie, der ville begynde at blive sendt i april 2013. [30] [31] Den nye serie, med titlen Hund og Beth: På jagt, fremhævede Chapman, hans kone Beth og Chapmans søn Leland, der besøgte svigtende kautionistbureauer i hele landet, gav dem råd om, hvordan de kunne vende deres forretninger og bistå med at fange deres mest eftersøgte flugter. [32] [33] [34]

Showets pilotafsnit indeholdt Chapman og hans søn Leland, der arbejdede sammen for første gang siden Leland forlod det forrige show i 2012. Showet kørte i tre sæsoner og blev sendt indtil det blev aflyst i 2016. [35]

Hundens mest eftersøgte Redigere

I 2019 ringede en ekstra spin-off med Dog og Beth Hundens mest eftersøgte, der sendes i en enkelt sæson. [36]

Forfatter Rediger

I 2007 udgav Chapman sin selvbiografi, Du kan løbe, men du kan ikke skjule (skrevet sammen med Laura Morton). Bogen debuterede som nr. 1 på New York Times bestsellerliste. [37]

Hans anden bog, Hvor der vises barmhjertighed, gives der barmhjertighed blev udgivet i 2010, også medforfatter med Morton. [38]

Udseende Rediger

  • Chapman og Beth optrådte i Hjørnegas afsnittet "Coming Distractions", hvor de - under en dagdrøm - dukker op for at anholde Brent.
  • Chapman optrådte sammen med sin kone Beth på Criss Angel Mindfreak en times special. Hund bandt Criss Angel op til en stol og sænkede ham i et spabad. Efter fire minutter løsnede Criss båndene, men kunne ikke helt frigøre sig.
  • Chapman optrådte som sig selv i en episode af George Lopez, hvor George går til sin mors kvarter for at hente sin kæledyrshund og i stedet møder "Hund".
  • Chapman optrådte som sig selv i sæson to finale "The Trial" af NBC -showet Jeg hedder Earl, fanger Joy Darville i Mexico.
  • Chapman og Beth deltog i Gene Simmons 'bryllup med Shannon Tweed Gene Simmons familiejuveler. [episode nødvendig]
  • Chapman og Beth optrådte som sig selv i den canadiske tv -serie Hjørnegas i 2008. [39]
  • Duane, Beth, Leland og Lyssa Chapman optræder alle i pre-credits segmentet af Hawaii Five-0 afsnittet "Na Ki'i" med Duane Chapman, der kortvarigt interagerer med Steve McGarrett (Alex O'Loughlin). Duane laver yderligere cameoer i hele sæson 6, med en tilbagevendende rolle i sæson 7.
  • Chapman har en cameo i tv -filmen Sharknado: The 4th Awakens, som en motorsavforhandler.
  • Chapman optræder i HLN -serien Løgne, forbrydelser og video afsnittet "Secrets in Room 120", hvor han interviewes om Ralph Shortey og hans arrestation i 2017.

I begyndelsen af ​​oktober 2007 fik Chapman negativ offentlig opmærksomhed, efter at en privat telefonsamtale mellem ham og hans søn, Tucker, blev lækket til medierne. Samtalen handlede om det forhold, hans søn havde til en sort kvinde. Under optagelsen kan Chapman høres sige "Jeg er ligeglad med, om hun er mexicaner, en hore eller hvad som helst. Det er ikke fordi hun er sort, det er fordi vi nogle gange bruger ordet niger her. Jeg vil aldrig tage en chance i livet med at miste alt, hvad jeg har arbejdet for i 30 år, fordi en eller anden fanden nigger hørte os sige nigger og gav os til magasinet Enquirer. Vores karriere er slut! Jeg tager slet ikke den chance! Aldrig i livet! Aldrig ! Aldrig! Hvis Lyssa [Hundens datter] var sammen med en niger, ville vi alle sige 'fuck dig!' Og du ved det. Hvis Lyssa bragte en sort fyr hjem da. Det er ikke, at de er sorte, det er ikke noget af det. Det er, at vi bruger ordet nigger. Vi mener ikke, at du fandeme er en skummer uden sjæl. Vi mener ikke det lort. Men Amerika ville tro, at vi mener det. Og vi tager ikke en chance for at miste alt, hvad vi fik over en racemæssig slur, fordi vores søn går med sådan en pige. Det kan jeg ikke Tucker . Du kan ikke forvente, at Gary, Bonnie, Cecily, alle de unge børn [skramler], fordi 'jeg er forelsket i 7 måneder' - fuck det! Så, jeg hjælper dig med at få et andet job, men du kan ikke arbejde her, medmindre du bryder med hende, og hun er ude af dit liv. Jeg kan ikke klare det lort. Jeg har dem på parkeringspladsen og prøver at optage os. Jeg fik den pige til at sige, at hun vil bære en optager ... ". [40] Når båndet blev offentliggjort, meddelte A & ampE, at det suspenderede produktionen af ​​Chapmans tv -serier, afventende en undersøgelse. [41] [42] Den 31. oktober 2007 udsendte Chapman en offentlig undskyldning, [43] men den 2. november 2007 meddelte A & ampE det ikke desto mindre fjernede showet fra deres skema "i en overskuelig fremtid." [44]

Den 21. december 2007, Roy Innis, formanden for Congress of Racial Equality og medlem af National Rifle Association's bestyrelse, [45] [46] og en af ​​de første, der anmodede A & ampE -netværket om at få showet taget af sted luften, mødtes med Alicia Colon af New York Sun og Chapman. Senere sagde Innis: "Efter at have mødt ham og hans kone, Beth, og hørt hans side af historien, indså vi, at kontroversen uretmæssigt var kommet ud af kontrol uden kontekst. Duane har taget ejerskab over skaden af ​​hans ord og har taget på ansvaret for at være en racelærer for vores land. Jeg har været sammen med denne mand flere gange og haft omfattende dialoger med ham. Jeg betragter ham og hans kone som gode venner. Duane er en forandret mand og har et højere formål. Populært fjernsyn er en ødemark med meningsløs titillation og nedbrydning. Hundens potentiale til at tage sin berømthed og gøre den til noget forløsende for vores kultur og samfund er enorm. Det er af disse grunde, at vi vil have hans fjernsynsprogram tilbage i luften. " [47]

Den 19. februar 2008 meddelte A & ampE, at Chapmans tv -program ville vende tilbage til produktionen. [48]

Ægteskaber og børn Rediger

Chapmans første ægteskab var med La Fonda Sue Darnell (f. Honeycutt født 1953), af hvem han har to børn, Duane Lee Chapman, II (21. januar 1973) og Leland Blane Chapman (14. december 1976). [49] [50] [51] [52] De to giftede sig i Pampa, Texas, den 1. april 1972 og forblev gift indtil den 27. oktober 1977 La Fonda anmodede om skilsmisse fra Chapman, efter at han blev dømt for mord i første grad. , og fik forældremyndighed over Duane Lee og Leland. [53] [54] Chapman fik forældremyndigheden over drengene, efter at de to begyndte at blive involveret i kriminalitet, og de blev anbragt i pleje. [55] Begge sønner ville gå på arbejde med Chapman på Da'Kine Bail Bonds i Honolulu, Hawaii og vises på tv sammen med deres far. [56] [57] [58]

Hans andet ægteskab var med Ann Tegnell, med hvem han har tre børn, Zebadiah Chapman (1. januar 1980 - 31. januar 1980), Wesley Chapman (14. november 1980) og James Robert Chapman (2. marts 1982). De to giftede sig den 22. august 1979 i Colorado, kort efter Chapman blev paroleret efter at have afsonet to års fem års straf på Texas State Penitentiary for mord i første grad, og blev skilt engang efter Wesleys fødsel. [59] [60] De to forsonede sig kort, hvilket resulterede i fødslen af ​​deres søn James. [60] Ann fik efterfølgende forældremyndigheden over begge deres børn og flyttede til Utah. Wesley blev i sidste ende opvokset af sin mormor, og begge sønner blev forhindret i at kunne kommunikere med Chapman, de to blev genforenet med Chapman som voksne. [60]

Hans tredje ægteskab var med Lyssa Rae Brittain (f. Greene), en amerikansk forretningskvinde, der også er berømt som husmoder, og omtales som "Big Lyssa." [61] Ægteskabet blev angiveligt udført af en indiansk chef i Colorado -bjergene i 1982 og sluttede den 20. november 1991. De to havde mødt hinanden bare få dage før i en bar, mens Lyssa stadig var gift med sin mand, en forsamlinger af Guds minister, selvom de to siden var blevet skilt på grund af hans utroskab. [62] Ifølge Chapman tilbød han Lyssa $ 1.000 for at få sit barn, hvilket hun accepterede. [62] De havde tre børn sammen, Barbara Katie Chapman (8. juni 1982 - 19. maj 2006), Tucker Dee Chapman (8. september 1983) og Lyssa Rae Chapman (10. juni 1987). [62] Familien boede i Denver, Colorado, i et hjem, som hans bedstefar Mike efterlod til Chapman, sammen med Duane Lee og Leland. [62] Ifølge Chapmans datter Lyssa havde hun og hendes søskende angiveligt en hård barndom, hvor hændelser med seksuelt misbrug og stofmisbrug plagede familien. [63] [64]

Hans fjerde ægteskab var med Tawny Marie Chapman. De to mødtes i 1988, efter at Chapman anholdt hende på grund af en narkotikabeholdning, og hun efterfølgende blev hans sekretær. [65] De to giftede sig i 1992, separerede i 1994 og blev officielt skilt i 2002. De to havde ingen børn sammen, selvom Chapmans børn omtalte hende som deres mor under parrets forhold. I sin selvbiografi, Du kan løbe, men du kan ikke skjule, Omtalte Chapman ægteskabet som "en katastrofe fra starten" og påstod, at hun var afhængig af amfetamin. [66]

Hans femte ægteskab var med Alice Elizabeth "Beth" Barmore (født Smith), med hvem han havde et on-again-off-again-forhold, indtil de to giftede sig den 20. maj 2006 på et Hilton-hotel i Waikoloa Village, Hawaii. De havde to børn sammen, Bonnie Joanne Chapman (16. december 1998) og Garry Chapman (7. februar 2001), og Chapman adopterede Beths datter af sin eksmand, Cecily Barmore-Chapman (19. juni 1993). Chapman var også i stand til at hjælpe Beth med at finde og forene med sin søn, Dominic Davis (født 1985), som blev født til hende, da hun var teenager.

Dog og Beth betjente Da'Kine Kaution Bonds sammen. Beth døde den 26. juni 2019 på Hawaii som følge af halskræft. Hun havde fået diagnosen sygdommen i 2017 og gennemgik en 13-timers operation for at få fjernet en tumor. [67] Familien optrådte i en A & ampE -serie med titlen Dog and Beth: Fight of Their Lives, for at krønike oplevelsen.

Chapman har et barn uden for ægteskab, sit ældste barn Christopher Michael Hecht (juli 1969), som blev født af sin ekskæreste, Debbie White, mens han afsonede en fængselsstraf på 18 måneder. Debbie holdt sin graviditet fra Chapman og begik selvmord i 1978, hvilket førte til at drengen blev adopteret af Keith og Gloria Hecht. Hecht har angiveligt kæmpet med stof- og alkoholafhængighed siden mindst 1991 og har en lang kriminel historie, herunder en historie med hadforbrydelser. [68] [69]


Kan GMO'er ændre vores gener?

Bekymring har også omringet tanken om, at genetisk modificeret DNA ville være ustabil og forårsage skade (via utilsigtede mutationer) ikke kun på afgrøden, men også på hvem der ville forbruge den. Mutationer i DNA er tæt knyttet til kræft og andre sygdomme, og dermed kan mutagene stoffer have alvorlige virkninger på menneskers sundhed. Oprettelsen af ​​mutationer, kaldet mutagenese, kan måles og sammenlignes med kendte mutationsfremkaldende midler og kendte sikre forbindelser, så forskere kan afgøre, om medicin, kemikalier og fødevarer forårsager øgede mutationshastigheder. Der er forskellige måder at måle mutagenicitet på, men den mest traditionelle metode er en proces, som Bruce Ames var banebrydende ved University of California i Berkeley. Hans metode, der nu kaldes Ames -testen til hans ære, er i stand til at spore øgede mutationshastigheder i en levende ting som reaktion på et stof, som et kemikalie eller mad.

For direkte at teste en GMO's evne til at forårsage mutationer, anvendte en forskningsgruppe fra National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering i Beijing, Kina Ames -testen på GMO -tomater og GMO -majs [8]. GMO -tomater og majs udtrykker det virale pelsprotein af agurkemosaikvirus (CMV). Ekspression af dette pelsprotein giver resistens over for CMV, som er det mest bredt smitsomme virus af et kendt plantevirus, menes at inficere over 1.200 plantearter fra grøntsagsafgrøder til prydplanter. Resultaterne af Ames -testen viste ingen sammenhæng mellem GMO -tomater eller majs og mutationer. De gentog deres analyse ved hjælp af to yderligere metoder til analyse af mutagenicitet hos mus og fik det samme resultat, så de kunne konkludere, at genetisk modificeret DNA ikke forårsagede øgede mutationer hos forbrugere. Det modificerede DNA var, ligesom umodificeret DNA, ikke mutagent.

Mutagenicitet til side, der er også bekymringer omkring evnen af ​​det modificerede DNA til at overføre til DNA'et hos den, der spiser det eller har andre toksiske bivirkninger. Afhængig af graden af ​​forarbejdning af deres fødevarer vil en given person indtage mellem 0,1 og 1 g DNA hver dag [9] som sådan, DNA betragtes selv som sikkert af FDA [10]. For at afgøre, om DNA'et fra GMO-afgrøder er lige så sikkert at forbruge som DNA'et fra traditionelle fødekilder, gennemgik International Life Sciences Institute de kemiske egenskaber, modtagelighed for nedbrydning, metabolisk skæbne og allergenicitet af GMO-DNA og fandt ud af, at i alle tilfælde , Var GMO-DNA fuldstændig umuligt at skelne fra traditionelt DNA, og det er derfor ikke mere tilbøjeligt til at overføre til eller være giftigt for et menneske [9]. I overensstemmelse hermed forsøgte forskerne, der arbejdede på GMO -kartoflen, at isolere bar gen fra deres GMO -spisende rotter. På trods af 5 generationer eksponering for og indtagelse af GMO'en var forskerne ude af stand til at påvise genet i rotternes DNA [5].


11.4 'Markedets magi': Priserne er budskaber plus motivation

Nøglen til, hvordan denne proces fungerer, kan udtrykkes i en enkelt sætning. Når markeder fungerer godt, sender priser beskeder om den reelle mangel på varer og tjenester. Beskederne giver information, der motiverer folk til at tage hensyn til, hvad der er knappe og hvad der er rigeligt, og som et resultat heraf at producere, forbruge, investere og innovere på måder, der bedst udnytter økonomiens produktionspotentiale.

Priserne koordinerer specialisering blandt fremmede

Hvis tørke i de amerikanske store sletter betyder, at der er mindre hvede på verdensmarkedet, sender den resulterende stigning i brødprisen en besked til shopperen: 'Overvej at lægge kartofler eller ris på bordet i aften i stedet for brød.' ved måske ingenting om vejrforholdene i Amerika og behøver ikke at være den mindste bekymret over at indtage mindre af en vare, der er blevet sjældnere. For at reagere på budskabet om den højere pris på en måde, der bedst udnytter samfundets tilgængelige ressourcer, skal shopperen bekymre sig om kun én ting: at spare penge. Shopperen får ikke kun beskeden, men har en god grund til at handle på den.

Det er dette - det faktum, at priserne kombinerer information og en grund til at handle ud fra oplysningerne - der gør det muligt for markedssystemet (mange markeder indbyrdes forbundne) at koordinere arbejdsdelingen gennem udveksling af varer mellem hele fremmede, uden centraliseret retning. Friedrich Hayek, som var en del af økonom og en del filosof, foreslog, at vi tænker på markedet som en kæmpe informationsbehandlingsmaskine, der producerer priser, priserne giver information, der styrer økonomien, normalt i ønskelige retninger. Det bemærkelsesværdige ved denne massive computerenhed er, at det slet ikke er en maskine. Ingen har designet den, og ingen er ved kontrol. Når det fungerer godt, bruger vi sætninger som 'magien' på markedet.

Sender priserne de rigtige beskeder?

Men for at dette er tilfældet, skal de beskeder, som priserne sender, formidle de rigtige oplysninger - hvor knappe et godt egentlig er. Tænk over, hvad dette betyder - manglen på en vare måles ved dens sociale marginalomkostninger, det vil sige de samlede omkostninger ved at have en enhed mere af den, herunder ikke kun omkostningerne til dem, der producerer og distribuerer den, men også de eksterne effekter pålagt andre (f.eks. miljøskader).

Du har set mange tilfælde i de tidligere enheder, hvor prisen på en vare ikke er lig med dens sociale marginale omkostninger. Bananprisen i Martinique inkluderede f.eks. Ikke tabet af liv og levebrød, som pesticiderne på plantagerne påførte nedstrøms fiskerisamfund.

Prisen afspejler muligvis ikke de sociale marginalomkostninger på grund af enten:

  • Manglende konkurrence: Prisen er større end producentens private marginale omkostninger.
  • Eksterne effekter, der er omkostninger: For eksempel de netop nævnte negative miljøvirkninger.
  • Eksterne effekter, der er fordele: For eksempel den positive eksterne effekt for andre, hvis din videnskabelige forskning skabte et værdifuldt stykke viden, der var et offentligt gode.

Når priserne sender de forkerte beskeder, spørger vi, om der kan indføres en ændring af, hvordan markeder fungerer, ved hjælp af offentlige politikker for at forbedre økonomiske resultater, f.eks. Beskatning af produktionsprocesser, der afgiver drivhusgasser eller subsidierer grundforskning.

Vi illustrerer nu, hvordan priserne kan sende det rigtige budskab, og nogle gange ikke, af to sager i den virkelige verden.

Store økonomer Friedrich Hayek

Den store depression i 1930'erne hærgede de kapitalistiske økonomier i Europa og Nordamerika og smed en fjerdedel af arbejdsstyrken ud af arbejde i USA. I samme periode fortsatte den centralt planlagte økonomi i Sovjetunionen med at vokse hurtigt under en række femårsplaner. Selv socialismens ærke-modstander, Joseph Schumpeter, havde indrømmet: ’Kan socialisme fungere? Selvfølgelig kan det. … Der er ikke noget i vejen med socialismens rene logik. ’2

Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) var uenig. Født i Wien, han var en østrigsk (senere britisk) økonom og filosof, der mente, at regeringen skulle spille en minimal rolle i samfundets drift. Han var imod enhver indsats for at omfordele indkomst i social retfærdigheds navn. Han var også en modstander af den politik, som John Maynard Keynes foreslog, designet til at dæmpe økonomiens ustabilitet og usikkerheden i beskæftigelsen.

Hayeks bog, Vejen til livegdom, blev skrevet på baggrund af Anden Verdenskrig, da økonomisk planlægning blev brugt både af tyske og japanske fascistiske regeringer, af de sovjetiske kommunistiske myndigheder og af de britiske og amerikanske regeringer. Han hævdede, at velmenende planlægning uundgåeligt ville føre til et totalitært resultat. 3

His key idea about economics—that prices are messages—revolutionized how economists think about markets. Messages convey valuable information about how scarce a good is, information that is available only if prices are free to be determined by supply and demand, rather than by the decisions of planners. Hayek even wrote a comic book, which was distributed by General Motors, to explain how this mechanism was superior to planning.

But Hayek did not think much of the theory of competitive equilibrium, in which all buyers and sellers are price-takers. ‘The modern theory of competitive equilibrium,’ he wrote, ‘assumes the situation to exist which a true explanation ought to account for as the effect of the competitive process.’ 4

In Hayek’s view, assuming a state of equilibrium (as Walras, one of the founders of the neoclassical school of economics, had done in developing general equilibrium theory) prevents us from analysing competition seriously. He defined competition as ‘the action of endeavouring to gain what another endeavours to gain at the same time.’ Hayek explained:

Now, how many of the devices adopted in ordinary life to that end would still be open to a seller in a market in which so-called ‘perfect competition’ prevails? I believe that the answer is exactly none. Advertising, undercutting, and improving (‘differentiating’) the goods or services produced are all excluded by definition—’perfect’ competition means indeed the absence of all competitive activities. 5

The advantage of capitalism, to Hayek, is that it provides the right information to the right people. In 1945, he wrote:

Which of these systems [central planning or competition] is likely to be more efficient depends mainly on the question under which of them we can expect [to make fuller use] of the existing knowledge. This, in turn, depends on whether we are more likely to succeed in putting at the disposal of a single central authority all the knowledge which ought to be used but which is initially dispersed among many different individuals, or in conveying to the individuals such additional knowledge as they need in order to enable them to dovetail their plans with those of others. 6


A Friedman doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase Its Profits

WHEN I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the “social responsibilities of business in a free‐enterprise system,” I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at, the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned “merely” with profit but also with promoting desirable “social” ends that business has a “social conscience” and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are—or would be if they or any one else took them seriously— preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.

The discussions of the “social responsibilities of business” are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that “business” has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but “business” as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.

Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietor and speak of corporate executives.

IN a free‐enterprise, private‐property system, a corporate executive is an employe of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose—for example, a hospital or school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.

In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.

Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straightforward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.

Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he recognizes or assumes voluntarily—to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He may feel impelled by these responsibilities to devote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corporations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country's armed forces. If we wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as “social responsibilities.” But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are “social responsibilities,” they are the social responsibilities of individuals, not of business.

What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a “social responsibility” in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price increase would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the en vironment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire “hard core” unemployed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.

In each of these cases, the corporate executive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his “social responsibility” reduce returns to stock holders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers’ money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employes, he is spending their money.

The stockholders or the customers or the employes could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct “social responsibility,” rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employes, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it.

But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other.

This process raises political questions on two levels: principle and consequences. On the level of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of tax proceeds are governmental functions. We have established elaborate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that taxes are imposed so far as possible in accordance with the preferences and desires of the public— after all, “taxation without representation” was one of the battle cries of the American Revolution. We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legislative function of imposing taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and administering expenditure programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and interpreting the law.

Here the businessman—self‐selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockholders—is to be simultaneously legislator, executive and jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds—all this guided only by general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight poverty and so on and on.

The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to be selected by the stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the interests of his principal. This justification disappears when the corporate executive imposes taxes and spends the proceeds for “social” purposes. He becomes in effect a public employe, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employe of private enterprise. On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil servants—insofar as their actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just window‐dressing—should be selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be selected through a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expenditures to foster “social” objectives, then political machinery must be set up to guide the assessment of taxes and to determine through a political process the objectives to be served.

This is the basic reason why the doctrine of “social responsibility” involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses.

ON the grounds of consequences, can the corporate executive in fact discharge his alleged “social responsibilities"? On the one hand, suppose he could get away with spending the stockholders’ or customers’ or employes’ money. How is he to know how to spend it? He is told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to know what action of his will contribute to that end? He is presumably an expert in running his company—in producing a product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his holding down the price of his product reduce inflationary pressure? Or, by leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers, simply divert it elsewhere? Or, by forcing him to produce less because of the lower price, will it simply contribute to shortages? Even if he could answer these questions, how much cost is he justified in imposing on his stockholders, customers and employes for this social purpose? What is his appropriate share and what is the appropriate share of others?

And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending his stockholders, customers’ or employes’ money? Will not the stockholders fire him? (Either the present ones or those who take over when his actions in the name of social responsibility have reduced the corporation's profits and the price of its stock.) His customers and his employes can desert him for other producers and employers less scrupulous in exercising their social responsibilities.

This facet of “social responsibility” doctrine is brought into sharp relief when the doctrine is used to justify wage restraint by trade unions. The conflict of interest is naked and clear when union officals are asked to subordinate the interest of their members to some more general social purpose. If the union officials try to enforce wage restraint, the consequence is likely to be wildcat strikes, rank‐and‐file revolts and the emergence of strong competitors for their jobs. We thus have the ironic phenomenon that union leaders—at least in the U.S. —have objected to Government interference with the market far more consistently and courageously than have business leaders.

The difficulty of exercising “social responsibility” illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise — it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to “exploit” other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes. They can do good—but only at their own expense.

Many a reader who has followed the argument this far may be tempted to remonstrate that it is all well and good to speak of government's having the responsibility to impose taxes and determine expenditures for such “social” purposes as controlling pollution or training the hard‐core unemployed, but that the problems are too urgent to wait on the slow course of political processes, that the exercise of social responsibility by businessmen is a quicker and surer way to solve pressing current problems.

Aside from the question of fact—I share Adam Smith's skepticism about the benefits that can be expected from “those who affected to trade for the public good”—this argument must be rejected on grounds of principle. What it amounts to is an assertion that those who favor the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to be of like mind and that they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic procedures. In a free society, it is hard for “good” people to do “good,” but that is a small price to pay for making it hard for “evil” people to do “evil,” especially since one man's good is anther's evil.

I HAVE, for simplicity, concentrated on the special case of the corporate executive, except only for the brief digression on trade unions. But precisely the same argument applies to the newer phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require corporations to exercise social responsibility (the recent G.M. crusade, for example). In most of these cases, what is in effect involved is some stockholders trying to get other stockholders (or customers or employes) to contribute against their will to “social” causes favored by the activists. Insofar as they succeed, they are again imposing taxes and spending the proceeds.

The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different. If he acts to reduce the returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his “social responsibility,” he is spending his own money, not someone else's. If he wishes to spend his money on such purposes, that is his right, and I cannot see that there is any objection to his doing so. In the process, he, too, may impose costs on employes and customers. However, because he is far less likely than a large corporation or union to have monopolistic power, any such side effects will tend to be minor.

Of course, in practice the doctrine of social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions.

To illustrate, it may well be in the long‐run interest of a corporation that is a major employer in a small community to devote resources to providing amenities to that community or to improving its government. That may make it easier to at tract desirable employes, it may reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and sabotage or have other worthwhile effects. Or it may be that, given the laws about the deductibility of corporate charitable contributions, the stockholders can contribute more to charities they favor by having the corporation make the gift than by doing it them selves, since they can in that way contribute an amount that would otherwise have been paid as corporate taxes.

In each of these—and many similar—cases, there is a strong temptation to rationalize these actions as an exercise of “social responsibility.” In the present climate of opinion, with its widespread aversion to “capitalism,” “profits,” the “soulless corporation” and so on, this is one way for a corporation to generate goodwill as a by‐product of expenditures that are entirely justified in its own self‐interest.

It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate executives to refrain from this hypocritical window dressing because it harms the foundations of a free society. That would be to call on them to exercise “social responsibility”! If our institutions, and the attitudes of the public make it in their self‐interest to cloak their actions in this way, cannot summon much indignation to denounce them. At the same time, can express admiration for those in dividual proprietors or owners of closely held corporations or stock holders of more broadly held corporations who disdain such tactics as approaching fraud.

WHETHER blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense spoken in its name by influential and prestigious businessmen, does clearly harm the foundations of a free society. I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely far‐sighted and clear‐headed in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly short sighted and muddle‐headed in mat ters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of business in general. This short sightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or incomes policies. There is nothing that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system and replace it by a centrally controlled system than effective governmental control of prices and wages.

The short‐sightedness is also exemplified in speeches by business men on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the ptirsuit of profits is wicked and im moral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, business men seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.

The political principle that under lies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no “social” values, no “social” responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form.

The political principle that under lies the political mechanism is conformity. The individual must serve more general social interest— whether that be determined by church or a dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and a say in what is to be done, but if he is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to require others to contribute to a general social purpose whether they wish to or not.

Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasible. There are some respects in which conformity appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use of the political Mechanism altogether.

But the doctrine of “social responsibility” taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book “Capitalism and Freedom,” I have called it a “fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, and have said that in such a society, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception fraud.”


5. The Naturalism Debate

Evolutionists were successful in court. Nevertheless, Laudan and fellow thinkers inspired the Creationists to new efforts, and since the Arkansas court case, the philosophical dimension to the evolution/Creationism controversy has been much increased. In particular, philosophical arguments are central to the thinking of the leader of today&rsquos creationists, Berkeley law professor, Phillip Johnson, whose reputation was made with the anti-evolutionary tract Darwin on Trial (1991). (Johnson&rsquos influence and importance is recognized by all and he has become leader emeritus. As we shall see, the task of leadership then got passed to younger people, especially the biochemist Michael Behe and the philosopher-mathematician William Dembski.) In respects, Johnson just repeated the arguments of the Creation Scientists (those given in an earlier section) &ndash gaps in the fossil record and so forth &mdash but at the same time he stressed that the Creation/evolution debate is not just one of science versus religion or good science versus bad science, but rather of conflicting philosophical positions. The implication was that one philosophy is much like another, or rather the implication was that one person&rsquos philosophy is another person&rsquos poison and that it is all a matter of personal opinion. Behind this one sees the lawyer&rsquos mind at work that, if it is all a matter of philosophy, then there is nothing in the United States Constitution which bars the teaching of Creationism in schools. (For better or for worse, one sees the heavy hand of Thomas Kuhn here, and his claim in his Strukturen af ​​videnskabelige revolutioner that the change from one paradigm to another is akin to a political revolution, not ultimately fueled by logic but more by extra-scientific factors, like emotions and simple preferences. In the Arkansas trial, Kuhn was as oft mentioned by the prosecutors as was Popper.)

Crucial to Johnson&rsquos position are a number of fine distinctions. He distinguishes between what he calls &ldquomethodological naturalism&rdquo and &ldquometaphysical naturalism&rdquo. The former is the scientific stance of trying to explain by laws and by refusing to introduce miracles. A methodological naturalist would insist on explaining all phenomena, however strange, in natural terms. Elijah setting fire to the water-drenched sacrifice, for instance, would be explained in terms of lightning striking or some such thing. The latter is the philosophical stance that insists that there is nothing beyond the natural &ndash no God, no supernatural, no nothing. &lsquoNaturalism is a metaphysical doctrine, which means simply that it states a particular view of what is ultimately real and unreal. According to naturalism, what is ultimately real is nature, which consists of the fundamental particles that make up what we call matter and energy, together with the natural laws that govern how those particles behave. Nature itself is ultimately all there is, at least as far as we are concerned&rsquo (Johnson 1995, 37&ndash38).

Then there is someone that Johnson calls a &lsquotheistic realist.&rsquo This is someone who believes in a God, and that this God can and does intervene in the natural world. &lsquoGod always has the option of working through regular secondary mechanisms, and we observe such mechanisms frequently. On the other hand, many important questions &ndash including the origin of genetic information and human consciousness &ndash may not be explicable in terms of unintelligent causes, just as a computer or a book cannot be explained that way&rsquo (p. 209). Johnson thinks of himself as a theistic realist, and hence as such in opposition to metaphysical realism. Methodological realism, which he links with evolutionism, would seem to be distinct from metaphysical realism, but it is Johnson&rsquos claim that the former slides into the latter. Hence, the evolutionist is the methodological realist, is the metaphysical realist, is the opponent of the theistic realist &ndash and as far as Johnson is concerned, the genuine theistic realist is one who takes a pretty literalistic reading of the Bible. So ultimately, it is all less a matter of science and more a matter of attitudes and philosophy. Evolution and Creationism are different world pictures, and it is conceptually, socially, pedagogically, and with good luck in the future legally wrong to treat them differently. More than this, it is incorporated into Johnson&rsquos argument that Creationism (a.k.a. Theistic Realism) is the only genuine form of Christianity.

But does any of this really follow? The evolutionist would claim not. The key notion in Johnson&rsquos attack is clearly methodological naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism, having been defined as something which precludes theism, has been set up as a philosophy with a religion-like status. It necessarily perpetuates the conflict between religion and science. But as Johnson himself notes, many people think that they can be methodological naturalists and theists. Methodological naturalism is not a religion equivalent. Is this possible, at least in a consistent way with intellectual integrity? It is Johnson&rsquos claim that it is not, for he wants the religion/science war to be absolute with no captives or compromises.


BIBLIOGRAFI

works on the methodology of economics

Friedman, Milton (1953) 1959 Essays in Positive Economics. Univ. of Chicago Press. → See especially Chapter 1.

Keynes, John N. (1891) 1955 The Scope and Method of Political Economy. 4th ed. New York: Kelley.

Knight, Frank H. (1933) 1951 The Economic Organization. New York: Kelley. → A paperback edition was published in 1966 by Harper.

Koopmans, Tjalling 1957 Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York: McGraw-Hill. → Makes considerable use of mathematics.

Machlup, Fritz 1963 Essays on Economic Semantics. Edited by Merton H. Miller. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Robbins, Lionel (1932) 1937 An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. 2d ed., rev. & enl. London: Macmillan.

general textbooks and journal references

American Economic Association 1961–1965 Index of Economic Journals. 6 bind. Homewood, III.: Irwin.

Bach, George L. (1954) 1966 Economics: An Introduction to Analysis and Policy. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Lipsey, Richard G. and Steiner, Peter O. 1966 Economics. New York: Harper.

Samuelson, Paul A. (1948) 1964 Economics: An Introductory Analysis. 6. udgave New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stigler, George J. (1942) 1960 The Theory of Price. Rev. ed. New York: Macmillan. → First published as The Theory of Competitive Price.

Stonier, Alfred W. and Hague, Douglas C. (1953) 1964 A Textbook of Economic Theory. 3d ed. New York: Wiley.

Citer denne artikel
Vælg en stil herunder, og kopier teksten til din bibliografi.

"Economics ." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. . Encyclopedia.com. 17. juni 2021 & lt https://www.encyclopedia.com & gt.

"Economics ." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. . Retrieved June 17, 2021 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/economics

Citering stilarter

Encyclopedia.com giver dig mulighed for at citere referenceposter og artikler efter almindelige stilarter fra Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style og American Psychological Association (APA).

I værktøjet "Citer denne artikel" skal du vælge en typografi for at se, hvordan alle tilgængelige oplysninger ser ud, når de formateres i henhold til den typografi. Kopier og indsæt derefter teksten i din litteraturliste eller listen over værker, der er citeret.

Because each style has its own formatting nuances that evolve over time and not all information is available for every reference entry or article, Encyclopedia.com cannot guarantee each citation it generates. Therefore, it’s best to use Encyclopedia.com citations as a starting point before checking the style against your school or publication’s requirements and the most-recent information available at these sites:

Modern Language Association

The Chicago Manual of Style

American Psychological Association

Bemærkninger:
  • Most online reference entries and articles do not have page numbers. Therefore, that information is unavailable for most Encyclopedia.com content. However, the date of retrieval is often important. Refer to each style’s convention regarding the best way to format page numbers and retrieval dates.
  • In addition to the MLA, Chicago, and APA styles, your school, university, publication, or institution may have its own requirements for citations. Therefore, be sure to refer to those guidelines when editing your bibliography or works cited list.

William Bennett

Last but not least -- Wellington NZ artist William Bennett, who did plenty of Red Mars designs a few years ago. And I do mean plenty! This might make this page heavier, but I wanted to display all 33 images here! There's a great level of detail -- you can display each image individually to read some comments. In some cases he has taken inspiration from the books and added some of his own ideas and concepts (such as logos of real-world companies).

The First Hundred training base in Antarctica:

Assembly of the Ares in Earth orbit:

First colonizers' habitats:

Trucks and other vehicles:

Space elevator and Clarke base:

Martian consumer products (Philip K Dick would like this):

That's all for now! Suffice to say there's plenty of interest for a visual interpretation of these novels. One can imagine the above being artwork commissioned to be the basis for a feature film or television series adaptation of the novels. Personally, I like the design aspect but I wonder whether an adaptation can make the themes of the novels justice.

We will now switch Earthside to cover the imminent release of KSR's new novel, The Ministry for the Future!


The fly and the cookie: alignment and unhingement in 21st-century capitalism

This SASE Presidential address given at UC Berkeley in 2016 discusses the entanglement between morality and capitalism. Moral sentiments—and especially what Adam Smith called the sense of propriety, the sense of merit and the sense of justice—play a productive role in organizing the extraction of economic value. Conversely, relative valuations in the economy (prices, for instance) can be thought of as moral engines that reward or sanction certain behaviors, and are presumed to index underlying moral differences. Economic value is produced both when individuals are morally aligned with the rational goals of capitalism, and when they perform unhinged deviations from the moral standard. I show how modern digital capitalism organizes profit extraction through these twin processes of alignment and unhingement, building new economic moralities in the process—moral sentiments that are the result of people’s interactions with opaque but powerful forms of behavioral fine-tuning, surveillance and manipulation.